President Donald Trump‘s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs have sent global markets into their steepest decline since the pandemic, with economic experts warning of recession risks and trading partners already announcing retaliatory measures. But behind the immediate market turmoil lies a more fundamental crisis, that of a presidential power grab which threatens our constitutional order.

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress—not the president—the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers deliberately placed this authority with the legislative branch because they understood that decisions affecting the entire economy require democratic deliberation and broad representation of diverse interests. Presidential tariff authority exists only through powers delegated by Congress, but those delegations were never intended to permit unilateral executive restructuring of the entire global trading system.

The Supreme Court‘s recent jurisprudence suggests such extraordinary executive action should not stand. The Court’s “major questions doctrine,” developed in cases like West Virginia v. EPA and strengthened in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, requires Congress to “speak clearly” when authorizing the executive branch to make decisions of vast economic and political significance.

If the Court applied this doctrine to strike down Joe Biden‘s student loan forgiveness plan, which was estimated at carrying a one time $400 billion price tag, then surely it must also apply to these tariffs which the Trump administration claims will raise trillions in $6 trillion revenue over the next decade. The laws Trump relies on simply do not contain clear congressional authorization for tariffs of this magnitude.

Moreover, one must question the “emergency” justifications Trump is using to implement his ultra-protectionist trade policy. The “Liberation Day” tariffs were said to be necessary given “the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships.” This sort of reasoning doesn’t even pretend to cloak itself as an emergency, it simply declares that the president thinks the status quo is unfair. It’s as if a referee in a football game, believing one team has been getting away with too many penalties, suddenly decides to award the other team 20 points without consulting the rulebook or other officials. Perceived unfairness in the normal course of play doesn’t constitute an emergency that justifies unilateral rule changes.

Just as troubling is that many of the tariffs have no logical connection to the purported emergencies justifying them. How does a 25 percent tariff on Canadian maple syrup address fentanyl trafficking? How does taxing European luxury goods solve trade imbalances caused by currency manipulation? This disconnect reveals the arbitrary nature of these emergency declarations.

The administration has created a policy framework where any imported product—from Italian shoes to Japanese electronics to German automobiles—can be subjected to punitive taxation regardless of whether it has any rational relationship to the claimed emergency. It’s akin to declaring a house fire but then spraying water on every building in the neighborhood, regardless of which one is actually burning. Such an indiscriminate approach demonstrates that these aren’t targeted responses to genuine emergencies but rather a pretext for implementing a sweeping economic agenda that circumvents Congress’ constitutional authority.

This isn’t about whether tariffs represent sound economic policy (though most economists would argue they don’t). It’s about whether our constitutional structure permits a president—any president—to unilaterally implement one of the largest tax increases in generations through executive decree, using emergency powers in ways they were never intended.

For conservatives who genuinely care about limiting executive power and enforcing constitutional constraints, these tariffs present a moment of truth. The same legal principles they championed when limiting Democratic administrations apply with equal force here. For progressives concerned about unchecked presidential authority, this offers a rare opportunity for principled cross-partisan agreement.

The constitutional principles at stake should transcend partisan politics. At a moment when global markets are in freefall and American households face the prospect of paying thousands more annually for everyday goods, the judiciary must demonstrate that the Constitution’s separation of powers still matters—that not even the president can impose the largest tax increase in decades without congressional approval.

Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Georgia College and State University.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.